I think you're misunderstanding the tank's temperature. The internal temperature is 32C, the external temperature is only 16C (they used thermal cameras to measure the external temp, but when they got closer they read the internal gauge which showed 32C). Groundwater in LA is apparently right around 16C, so the difference in temperature between the tank and the water would be basically 0.

So while I do agree that the evaporative cooling is probably doing most of the heavy lifting (in fact, necessarily so if the water temp ~= the tank's exterior temp), it's not unreasonable to suggest that using colder water would be more effective.

In fact, the wet bulb temperature there is apparently right around 16C, so they've basically cooled the outside of the tank as much as they can using evaporative cooling alone. They can certainly use it to _keep_ it there, but without something else they wouldn't be able to cool it further.

Presumably if there's an exothermic reaction happening internally then the core will continue to rise in temperature based on the temperature gradient through the material forming in the tank. I would assume (since my understanding is that it's some kind of plastic) that it has a fairly low thermal conductivity, so the core temperature will continue to rise as more of it turns to plastic even as the outside is cooled to the same ~16C.

In the limit if they were able to immerse it completely in very cold water (~0C) then the exterior of the tank would also be ~0C (supposing they were able to access sufficient quantities of water). I don't think that's practical of course, but again I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that cold water would make a meaningful difference.

> Maybe importing some snow machines from Tahoe? :-)

That's not even funny:

1: Snowmaking equipment doesn't involve any chillers, they work by spraying a fine mist when the temperature is below freezing.

2: (Unless something changed in the last decade), the vast majority of snow in Tahoe is natural, not man-made.

3: There are closer ski areas than Tahoe. Mountain High, Mammoth...

4: Even if snowmaking involved chilling, (which it doesn't), it requires a significant amount of water and pressurized air, which requires specialized equipment and access to an energy source. It's assembled in the off season. Is it even practical to assemble all that in a matter of hours? Heck, is it even practical to disassemble it at a ski area's snowmaking equipment, truck it, and then re-assemble it?

---

Lesson for you: Keep your assumptions in check. You keep coming up with very creative, but highly impractical, solutions.

If you're on an engineering team, bring your suggestions with a dose of humility, learn to listen, and see how more experienced people solve problems.

Furthermore, in a time-sensitive situation, constantly explaining to someone why their creative ideas are impractical takes precious time away from solving the real problem.

Snow machines are just big spray nozzles. They don't chill the water the way you might be thinking. There's some adiabatic cooling from the expansion of compressed air, but that's about it.

Refrigerated liquid transport absolutely exists. Milk trucks is an example off the top of my head. Liquified natural gas is another.

> "refrigerated liquid transport"

Well, "Ice Cold" water is ice and ice trucks are a thing - not to mention for fast substantive cooling 0 Celsius ice blocks on top of the tank would soak up far more heat energy than the same weight of 0 Celsius water.

As for the transportation of cold liquids, there are many LNG / Propane trucks about - pressurised containers for Liquefied Natural Gas.